Jeep’s Chat Abuse

Hey guys, Pzk here. I think most people know that Jeep has, for a while, been abusing his Main Owner rank in GSA chat. While today’s infractions were not all that serious, I think that his evasion of the law has to be put to a stop – once and for all. We can’t make exceptions in GSA law solely because of rank or status. Here is my evidence for the conviction of Jeepdino:

Sorry for the pictures being blurry. As you can see, Jeep did not abide by the punishments for GSA members, and did in fact abuse his chat powers.

Here’s another of him:

He’s basically gloating about how what he does isn’t going to receive that much punishment.

Votes:

We should do something about this +: 8

The regular punishment should be administered or I don’t care -: 2

For someone who claims to be the oldest GSA member, you should know that we don’t decide if a member is guilty or innocent through a vote. I’ll judge. It’s gonna be a pain to ban a main owner for a day because ill have to reset the chat. -Nickman101

Pzk: It doesn’t matter how long he’s been in GSA. Chat abuse shouldn’t be tolerated anyway. Exceptions shouldn’t be made because of seniority or favoritism. And we’re not deciding whether or not his is innocent or guilty. We know he’s guilty of chat abuse, and we know that banning him won’t change anything. I even added in a picture where he’s gloating about his banning punishment. No, I know that banning won’t fix anything. I’m talking about a possible demotion from Supreme.

[Jeep]

1.The “oldest GSA member” thing was directed at you I think.

2. Right, is this even over the Nighthawk thing or the Superkiller thing? The Superkiller thing was making him shut up about abuse, but it was also an example to show that “That wasn’t abuse, this would be”. If I was trying to abuse I’d have left him banned.

3. I wasn’t gloating, I was stating the most likely thing to happen that has been shown in the past.

[Nickman101:] Directed at you “I think?” Cmon guys theres this crazy thing called eyes that I think we posses, I think that in this situation we could use them to solve this mystery.

[Eagle613]: Technically this vote is illegal. We don’t choose punishments with votes. If you wanna be serious and in line with the set laws then talk to Nickman and start a formal trial. Otherwise I’m declaring this vote Null and Void. It can be considered an opinion poll pretty much now.

[Nickman101:] This vote is illegal, and if you want to do more then have him banned from the chat temporarily, (Anywhere from 1 minute to 600 days to whenever), then you have to find laws that he broke that hold a stronger punishment.

pzk said this wasnt a very serious version of abuse but that means he has abused before. this instance i have nothing wrong with but if its happened before it cant be ignored. i say no regular punishment +